Bug#38762: PROPOSAL] Policy should not be governed by GPL

[ron@microtronics.com.au (Ron)]

> At present, Debian Policy is covered by the GPL.  I do not understand
> why this is so, and recommend that we change it to something similar
> to what the GPL does:
> 
>  Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>                        59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA
>                        02111-1307  USA
>  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
>  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
> 
> Since the policy document specifies policy, it should not be freely
> modifiable.  If we wish people to be able to create policy documents
> for other projects based on it, then we can say something like the
> following: "Modified versions of this document may be distributed, but
> they must be clearly indicated as not being the official Debian
> Policy."
> 
> I do not know whether we should do similar things to the other
> official documentation (Packaging Manual, Developer's Reference?).

I'd have said that the biggest difference between the GPL and our
official documents is that the GPL was designed to be a strong
license used by anyone who agreed with its intent.  People really
don't want to sort through the nuances of an unlimited number of
GPL-alikes, and I'm sure the FSF don't want it watered down,
accidentally or otherwise by people confusing it for their own use
with the FredPl.

Using the GPL to license your software doesn't bind you to any direct
affiliation with the FSF.

Debian on the other hand is free to specify which particular versions
of it's official documents actually form 'policy' at any point in time.
It's a moot point that third parties are able to modify our documents
since that does not alter the documents that the Project actually
references.

eg. Changes in Corel Policy would not directly mirror to changes
    in our own.

Provided we have a canonical way to state which documents are presently
authorative for the Project, and how that is decided by the Project's
developers, I see no problem with the actual documents themselves
being GPL'd.